Question:
Do You Think It's A 'Right' To Have The Government Provide You With Healthcare ?
anonymous
1970-01-01 00:00:00 UTC
Do You Think It's A 'Right' To Have The Government Provide You With Healthcare ?
39 answers:
anonymous
2007-07-13 08:01:21 UTC
I don't understand the attacks at looking at our health care system. Why? Because there is an assumption of either keeping what we have or total government control, which, is not quite true. Massachusetts is an excellent example. They did not get rid of employer based health care, just, started a new program to offer different levels of health care to those that required it, for, a fee. Our health care system is a bit out of control, with, no end in sight, so, it is appropriate to look carefully at alternatives to our present system.
DJ
2007-07-13 07:56:53 UTC
No, but if they are going to provide it for illegals then they need to provide it for the citizens as well. The ones that want it anyway. I don't want it.
Cherie
2007-07-13 10:50:15 UTC
No Health Care is not a 'right' (and neither is housing for that matter). Our constitution does not provide for either. Why would we even WANT a government run health care system when the private sector can do things better and less expensively than our over inflated goverment?



Think about it--Americans trust their government run post office who work far less efficently than private carriers, despite the governments control over public education 3/4 of inner city kids can't read or write at grade level.....so why would anyone in their right mind think the goverment could run health care more efficiently and cheaper than the private sector? THEY CAN'T!



Yes, 35 million are without health insurance--but they are NOT without health care. Its called medical assistance-govt sponsored. Why would we scrap a system that performs at at least 85% efficiency to "save" the other 15% who are on federally funded programs and getting the SAME QUALITY health care?



The only health care 'crisis' in America is that people are foolish enough to listen to politicians who use it as an election tool. No one who is uninsured and in need of medical care is being turned away.
anonymous
2007-07-13 09:04:59 UTC
OK lets think about this for moment please.

Government Health Care sounds wonderful on paper. How can anyone with a heart deny poor children health care in this big bad world.

Tears sniff sniff.



Now lets look at the reality for a sec.

Who is going to pay for it.

Are people that excited about raising their taxes to pay for it.

Ask people if you are for universal health care of course people will say yes.

Now ask people are you will to have pay for it with higher taxes and lower quality.

I bet you get a different answer.

Lets consider what this song is telling us.

Eagles - Get Over It lyrics



I turn on the tube and what do I see

A whole lotta people cryin’ ’don’t blame me’

They point their crooked little fingers ar everybody else

Spend all their time feelin’ sorry for themselves

Victim of this, victim of that

Your momma’s too thin; your daddy’s too fat



Get over it

Get over it

All this whinin’ and cryin’ and pitchin’ a fit

Get over it, get over it



You say you haven’t been the same since you had your little crash

But you might feel better if I gave you some cash

The more I think about it, old billy was right

Let’s kill all the lawyers, kill ’em tonight

You don’t want to work, you want to live like a king

But the big, bad world doesn’t owe you a thing



Get over it

Get over it

If you don’t want to play, then you might as well split

Get over it, get over it



It’s like going to confession every time I hear you speak

You’re makin’ the most of your losin’ streak

Some call it sick, but I call it weak



You drag it around like a ball and chain

You wallow in the guilt; you wallow in the pain

You wave it like a flag, you wear it like a crown

Got your mind in the gutter, bringin’ everybody down

Complain about the present and blame it on the past

I’d like to find your inner child and kick it’s little ***



Get over it

Get over it

All this bitchin’ and moanin’ and pitchin’ a fit

Get over it, get over it



Get over it

Get over it

It’s gotta stop sometime, so why don’t you quit

Get over it, get over it



If you think the government is such a good thing to take care of us.

I do have 1 word for you to consider.

Katerina
Rooster
2007-07-13 08:04:34 UTC
I feel that affordable, quality healthcare is a right in today's world. however I don't feel it's a right the government must provide but at the same time I think the government has a responsibility to offer some kind of healthcare to those who cannot afford it.



I also believe it is a responsibility to live a healthy lifestyle.

Promoting healthy lifestyles and taking preventative actions regarding health is an important part of the equation I think is missing from the current healthcare debate.
anonymous
2007-07-13 08:01:10 UTC
no,neither is roads,schools or police.

it is also not the right of lobbyists to control our government. remember we the people
mbush40
2007-07-13 07:59:23 UTC
Last time I check my constitution, I did not see Healthcare being a Right. Nor is flying, driving, public transit, burial cost, life insurance.
anonymous
2007-07-13 07:55:02 UTC
NO
@#$%^
2007-07-13 07:53:47 UTC
Nope nor is it a responsibility.
lily-of-the-valley
2007-07-13 07:54:51 UTC
for all the taxes i've paid i'd sure rather get health care than fund a war
anonymous
2007-07-13 08:08:16 UTC
No,health care is not a right and neither is welfare a right,people who honestly need either can get them but it's not a right.

RIGHT's do not depend on someone else paying for them.

Name 1 right in the Bill of Rights that is paid for by a third party.



The whole arguement is simple,people are trying to dodge their responsibility and socialist politicians are pandering to get that vote.
Margaret K
2007-07-13 21:07:26 UTC
Well if years ago, limits on what taxes were used for, if taxes were dropped when no longer need, no permanent income tax created, maybe the government would have not created all these programs after taking corporate and individual money. If that were the case, maybe I could afford quality health care for myself and my children not subsidized by my employer. Thank goodness they do pay a large portion of it and I consider it part of my salary / compensation. As jobs are lost and go overseas, my opportunities to stay where I live to let my kids graduate here are getting slim and pay is less than half of what it was. There is a line no matter how well you have prepared that becomes hard to manage.



If the government is going to supply it - it better be in a form or fashion that is equal, valid, and of value. Medicare for the elderly is a joke. The elderly in this country came out of the depression and most had no means of investment or trust of it. They depend on pensions, retirement health care, and the government programs. The cost of health care has escalated so much in the last several years that they cannot keep up. If they don't have something else, they are out of luck. I would rather see more going to them and unisured children and single parents then the uninsured illegals. I have reached a point where my dollars should be represented and I think they are going to the wrong people. A right - no but the government has created programs where people can sit around on their duff and demand it.
Nibbles
2007-07-13 08:53:54 UTC
Healthcare is NOT a right....and instead of trying to force government healthcare....maybe what should be done is as simple as stopping the Insurance companies from the outrageous rates they charge. I do believe that would be a better use of taxpayer monies.



It all comes down to the greed of others....the insurance companies blame the personal injury lawyers...the lawyers blame the doctors...and there you have it...a Catch 22 situation....where do you force the wedge to stop the high cost spiral?



Lawyers and insurance companies are the biggest scourge on society...and they are also the reason that people can't afford healthcare. It's not the government....well it is if you look at what they allow to happen in the Courts everyday!
Incognito
2007-07-13 08:41:21 UTC
I don't believe it's a right or a personal responsibility. I believe good and available healthcare for everyone who needs it is a trait of a decent society. A healthy workforce and consumer base is a great foundation to a great economy too.



No, our healthcare system is not terrible, but it is run by the insurance companies...that is FACT. It's not run by doctors and it's not run by the people. It's run by massive corporations that are as greedy as any.



I mean, WHO ARE WE???, as a nation, as a society? Why should someone in our country have money be an object when we're talking life and death!? Why do we pay into a 'for-profit'- system when our own health is at stake. Why not pay the same amount into a 'not-for-profit' system and end up with better and more available healthcare for everyone?



Under our system: money is made off of illness. Let me illustrate hypothetically, if you have high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and don't work out... you're heart attack prone. If you wwalk into a Doctors office, he actually has no financial incentive in seeing you DON'T have a heart attack. It's actually more to their benefit if you do have a heart attack becasue that will insure more business. In the same case it's to the health insurance agency's financial benefit if you die from your heart attack so they won't have to pay recovery charges and hospital fees etc. etc...



That is not a Health System I would equate with a great country.



If we changed it, and all paid the same amount we're already paying into a 'not-for-profit' system, we could chane the rules. In the same hypothetical from above, we could place the financial incentive for the doctor to save you from ever having a heart attack. Get your blood pressure and cholesterol down through medication, start a wellness excercise regiment subsidized health club or facility and turn your health around. That would actually cost far less to the system then if you were to ever have a heart attack and need care for that. AND That doctor's pay would increase based on their record of prevention.



Do you see my point. Yes, it would mean a bigger government, it might mean more taxes too. But those costs would offset against how many trillions business in this country would save on health costs. It could jolt our economy and make the cost of doing business here a lot more feasable, especially for small business.



If you think about it, we're paying a ton of money into our healthcare system and percentage of that is going toward profits and dividends. Why not put that money into the healthcare system instead. Essentially we're eliminating the middle men and putting the money we already spend into the right places.
cyansure
2007-07-13 15:47:50 UTC
Healthcare is not a "right".The USA provides freedom from undue government oppression and control,education and opportunities. There is No guarantee anywhere on earth that individuals will enjoy a "successful "life, ideal job family material goods or good HEALTH.

..AS America was settled, states and the federal government did not provide housing, fuel,transportation (horses/train tickets/wagons) or medical/dental care. With freedom and opportunity comes responsibility.

..W/ Freedom--> an individual CAN CHOSE what is important,a desire, a necessity..AND What DECISIONS they will make to achieve their goals/need...

--->Bluntly put, the ability to chose to buy a plasma TV, $100 sneakers/sports jerseys,ski/fishing tripspricy car,ipod,premium tv channel"packages"... etc OR purchase a family health care plan (~$4,500* )if employer plans not available. IS A CHOICE . Many chose to risk or hope that they will never need medical care.knowing that they can receive "free" treatment at any ER.

...I do not believe that the government should provide or nationalize "health care"simply because it is abasic Human right. US Citizens are taxed to provide assistance fro the elderly,infirm,disabled and orphans.I believe that All other society members are responsible for their decisions and choices. The idea that people are suffering because they cant "see a Dr./ get care for their kids,...etc is based on political surveys and stats talken from hosp/med.providers that report raw # of patients that state they have no insurance. No reports correlate uninsured #'s with the individuals actual "life style, material possessions,..etc", employment, and reported versus actual income. Many routinely recive income (tips, of the books jobs etc) that are never reported so its extemely easy to find a "poor struggling Family" that cant "afford" to get medical care and want their needs provided at no cost .(by the way every state provides free immunizations to children of low income families...yet every year there are "outbreaks".

...In short, with our form of government, no amount of regulation or "free service" can alter an individuals decision as to how to handle their health issues. Every Human knows that they will need medical or dental help. Those that deny this fact would demand charity from others because they what ??didnt think ? figured it wouldnt matter since others will feel compelled to help ?? decided that other things/desires were more important? were psychic and new their fate didnt include a random toothache,or stumble that breaks a limb?

....I am at heart, a very charatible person, but I do have a problem with others who chose a life/life style that is focused on What I want, What can I get, and Why others need to "understand" that everyone makes mistakes /bad choices/ decisions/... Everyone's life has hard spots;Everyone makes mistakes . A decision to use ""difficulty as an excuse is invalid, irresponsible and lazy.Everyone will Not achieve great wealth,fame,the objects of their desire. Everyone has a responsibility to chose a path and work past or around the potholes and hope for a happy healthy life.
Bronwen
2007-07-13 12:29:59 UTC
I don't believe it's a right, but I do believe it is the decent and moral thing for all people to have access to good healthcare. I also believe it makes sense in the long run from a purely financial standpoint if society provides for those who cannot provide for themselves. And as someone who both has healthcare and pays taxes, I can tell you I would be absolutely delighted to have part of my taxes go to providing healthcare for those who don't have it, even if it means a slighly higher tax burden.



One of my dearest friends is a firefighter and EMT. He happens to work in one of the cities in our area where the average income is much lower than the norm. An awful lot of what they do is stabilize tremendously sick people and get them to the hospital for treatment. A lot of the people in his area are the elderly, or the working poor who work ridiculous hours but aren't able to get healthcare for themselves and their families. How much does a ride in his ambulance cost? About $500. Who pays for that? The people who need to be transported don't have the resources, so it's passed along to others in the form of taxes (for the EMT services and ambulance rides) and higher healthcare costs (for the actual treatment in the hospital). A simple respiratory infection, which I, with healthcare, can have treated for a $25 office visit and $30 worth of antibiotics, ends up costing the rest of us thousands of dollars when it hits a person with no healthcare who ends up in the hospital with double pneumonia. And it's more likely to hit that person in the first place because he or she doesn't have adequate nutrition or access to basic healthcare like a simple pneumovax vaccine which will keep them healthy in the first place.



I know that some argue that providing healthcare makes lazy people lazier, and gives them an out to not work and try to provide for themselves. And I know very well that there are those who abuse the programs put in place to help those who fall through the cracks in the system. I don't believe that they are in the majority, though.



I think there is a lot of truth in the idea that a society can be judged by how it treats its most vulnerable and needy citizens. When judged by those standards, I think the US is falling short.



(By the way, you might be interested to know that where I live, self-insurance for healthcare averages around $450-$500 a month for a family of four, and the coverage is not very good. If you are self-employed, and making $70K a year, you can afford that, but a lot of the people who are faced with the choice of self-insuring or going without are making about $24K a year, which means they simply cannot keep food on the table and clothing on their childrens' bodies if they opt for self-insurance. No one should be faced with the choice of healthcare or food, especially not in a wealthy industrialized society like ours.)
anonymous
2016-10-21 07:14:10 UTC
Does everybody desire to take heed to what a pair of the Founding Fathers ought to assert in this subject count? "If Congress can do in spite of of their discretion could be completed via funds, and could sell the final Welfare, the government is not a constrained one, possessing enumerated powers, yet an indefinite one...." --James Madison "Congress has not countless powers to grant for the final welfare yet in elementary terms those specifically enumerated." --b9ece18c95afbfa6bfdbfa4ff731d3homas Jefferson "...[T]he government of the U. S. is a distinctive government, constrained to distinctive gadgets. that is not in elementary terms like the state governments, whose powers are extra regular. Charity is not any component of the legislative duty of the government." --James Madison "each and every individual of the society has a suitable to be secure via it interior the delight in his existence, liberty, and property, in accordance to status regulations. he's obliged, for this reason, to make contributions his share to the cost of this secure practices; and to grant his very own provider, or an equivalent, whilst mandatory. yet no component of the valuables of somebody can, with justice, be taken from him, or utilized to public makes use of, with out his very own consent, or that of the representative physique of the individuals. In high-quality, the individuals of this commonwealth at the instant are not controllable via the different regulations than those to which their constitutional representative physique have given their consent."--John Adams, b9ece18c95afbfa6bfdbfa4ff731d3houghts on government, 1776 b9ece18c95afbfa6bfdbfa4ff731d3hough not a founding father, today, right here is an exciting theory: An imbalance between wealthy and unfavorable is the oldest and maximum deadly ailment of all republics."-Plutarch
CHARITY G
2007-07-13 07:59:01 UTC
I don't believe it is a right, but I do believe it makes economic sense. Why pass the burden of health care to your employer? Most people only pay about 50% of premiums . . . while leaving the other 50% to corporate America. Also, it would make investment much easier if new business didn't have to factor this expense into start-up costs. It would make large corporations more competitive on the global market because it would reduce over all payroll expenses. Response - Actually they are once they have 35 or more employees. Federal Law. Have you ever owned a business? Would you work for a company that did not provide basic benefits . . . Get a clue.
egg_sammash
2007-07-13 08:17:21 UTC
No I do not believe it is the governments responsibility to provide every American with health care.

My husband is a very hard worker and have always paid to have medical, dental and vision insurance for me and the kids however we have not used it too much, thank God for that. I don't take advantage of wellness benefits because I guess I'm just old school and don't see the need of taking healthy children to the doc so they can search down something that is not there. I know there are many critics to that approach.



However when I see all the waste that goes on in Medicaid it makes me numb....teenagers taking their babies to the ER for a common cold is just nuts. Handing out antibiotics for viruses doesn't make any sense. The list goes on and on. Many of these gov. health clinics encourage these kids to keep coming back just to secure their gov. funding to keep their doors open. It's crazy.



I believe socializing health care will only lower the standards of system we already have while also creating massive abuses and waste.

Much like the WIC program that finds most of their supplements thrown in the trash can.
anonymous
2007-07-13 08:02:20 UTC
Most Liberals advocate "health care" as a right. Actually, there is nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights that remotely suggests that people have the right to material goods or services that must be provided by the labor of others. To suggest that people have the right to health care is essentially an advocation of tyranny. What other material goods and services do we have a right to that others must supply without question? Housing? Food? Car insurance? Where does this sick and flawed reasoning end?
Steve
2007-07-13 07:53:47 UTC
The question isn't if it's a right or not - it's whether a single payer system would be more efficient and better for business.



And increasingly, businesses have stated that the employer-provided health care system we have now is a severe burden.



Additionally, adding an extra layer of bureaucracy between the consumer and the doctor (the insurance companies) simply adds about 25-35% to the cost of health care.



The overhead for the government run, single-payer system of Medicare is about 2%. The overhead for private insurance ranges from 15-25%. On top of this, you need to add in corporate profits and CEO pay. So yes - the government could do the job of the insurance companies much more efficiently, and this would be fantastic for our international business competitiveness.



Trying to frame this as a question of "rights" is simply a dodge - a way insurance companies and their mouthpieces have manged to get people to be content with a fundamentally inefficient system.
rmagedon
2007-07-13 15:02:50 UTC
No.



Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power. The Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. -Daniel Webster



It is not mentioned here

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;



To borrow money on the credit of the United States;



To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;



To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;



To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;



To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;



To establish post offices and post roads;



To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;



To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;



To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;



To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;



To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;



To provide and maintain a navy;



To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;



To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;



To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;



To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the government of the United States, and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings;--And



To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.



nor is it mentioned here

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.



therefore it is not a right, might be a wish for a free lunch but it is not a right.



you want healthcare and cannot afford insurance, go to an ER, they will take care of you regardless of your ability to pay.
Huw
2007-07-13 08:01:42 UTC
There is no such thing as a 'right', just what we decide is right or what we can take by force or strength of numbers. For example, there was the right to own slaves but that doesn't exist any more. So the government took away our rights?



Nobody talks about health care in countries that are too poor to provide it but US is frigging rich. There is no excuse for no health care system but people are too stupid to vote for candidates that represent their interests. 47 million Americans have no health care. If they just all voted for a candidate that would bring in a health care system? Easy.
anonymous
2007-07-13 08:00:28 UTC
We have the right to life in the US. If health care allows us to live and to make that a better life (persuit of happiness) than one could say we have the right to health care.



Do children in the womb have the right to be born? It may take a health care professional to help them be born and to live afterward. If the mother can't afford health care than the child might as well have been aborted early on and save all the hassle later? Is that the way the Right wants things? It sure seems so.
ALASPADA
2007-07-13 08:03:36 UTC
I do not see it as a right. I have a problem when legislatures and courts view things as rights that are not specifically laid out by the Constitution. Things like the right to privacy are just examples of over reaching courts to adopt policies that are not laid out by the founders so they can entrench these into our laws instead of just writing credible laws that can be upheld. Health care I guess in the long time will be viewed as another component of the right to privacy but I hope a day will come when a competent Court throws this out finally.
428 Moore
2007-07-13 08:27:36 UTC
Cuba has socialized medicine. It's the right of every Cuban citizen to be treated free of charge. Cubans' life expectancy is one of the highest in the world. Its health care research and delivery system is among the best. But unlike the profiteering American health care industry which for example helped convert the antihistamine Claritan from a covered (by them) prescribed medication to one consumers now purchase at much higher cost over the counter, the Cuban government exports its medical help to third world and developing nations in the form free Doctors and health care. It boils down in my opinion to a very simple premise; if you're selfish, self-serving, and unconscionable then the present system is for you, but if you have an ounce of decency or concern for human suffering National Health Insurance can't come soon enough!
pip
2007-07-13 08:24:05 UTC
well.. if everyone has a "right" to education.. then I would have to assume health care is no different.. neither is a basic human right for survival.. they are both about improving the overall quality of life in our nation. Really I don't see one any different than the other. I'll vote for it.. if it doesn't happen then oh well.. it just means we aren't ready for that yet.. and majority rule and all.
Jeff P
2007-07-13 10:39:00 UTC
Yes, because we have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as given to us by our constitution. That is something guaranteed to all people regardless of circumstances. And health care is the one arena where, without it, the "life" portion would not be possible. And since our current system makes it impossible for everyone to have care on their own, the government does need to be involved to guarantee this right.
truthisback
2007-07-13 08:25:17 UTC
One cannot simultaneously maintain that there is a "right" to any good or service, including healthcare, AND that rights are equal.



All wealth is created. Goods and services are wealth - to have a right to healthcare means you have a right to make someone else provide it to you. That means you and that provider are not equal.



You're entitled to your own opinion.



You are not entitled to a contradiction.
Truth B. Told ITS THE ECONOMY STUPID
2007-07-13 12:41:46 UTC
It is not a right, it's a service. And I'd like the gov't to stay as little involved with it as possible.
Fern O
2007-07-13 08:15:23 UTC
They provide for our defense don't they? We spend more money on the military than China, Russia, Iran, North Korea and others combined. Why? It's OK to spend money on weapons of mass destruction, but they can't provide healthcare for their most precious resource... their people...
anonymous
2007-07-13 07:54:46 UTC
NO! Your right is to get a job and be successful by your own volition. With this you can afford insurance. There is no reason why the government should provide healthcare. This will be yet another excuse for people to not work and get another government handout.
anonymous
2007-07-13 07:59:02 UTC
Of course it's a 'right'.

Are poor people supposed to just die if they can't afford expensive treatment? We are talking about the quality of people's lives here.

When it comes to healthcare, we ARE our brothers' keepers.



Nice riposte, Charity! (above) It's difficult to deal with a know-all!
Bush Invented the Google
2007-07-13 07:54:44 UTC
No.



It also isn't a "right" to have the government provide you with an income tax refund. Or military protection. That isn't a "right." Nor is it a "right" to have the government fund police and fire personnel.



We still have those things.
?
2007-07-13 08:01:21 UTC
Yes.



Except for United States citizens, they don't have all the rights that others have.



http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
anonymous
2007-07-14 04:57:15 UTC
i sure do ,you work all the time ,then you become disable.they sure schould,people that think it wrong.let it happen to them.
ArgleBargleWoogleBoo
2007-07-13 07:56:29 UTC
Call it anything you like - right, privilege, green cheese. As long as it happens I'll be happy, and so will the 50 million americans who don't have insurance.
Roscoe R
2007-07-13 07:58:05 UTC
Why should we spend money on Health care when we can spend it on



B2 bombers, B-52 Bombers, Nuclear subs, aircraft carriers, tanks , missles. etc etc etc etc....what do you think our WORTHLESS Pentagon wastes...and cannot defend US



We need money to KILL... and BOMB everyone...DUH



Maybe we can stack BODIES accross the US Mexican Border to keep out illegals
anonymous
2007-07-13 07:55:58 UTC
i think it is soo much better than having a government wich cares about nothing but war !!


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...